• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's your opinion on female soldiers?

How do you feel about female soldiers?

  • Like them, GI Jane is HOT

    Votes: 13 26.0%
  • Like them, but not on the front lines

    Votes: 10 20.0%
  • I'm a realist, I don't like them

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Potato

    Votes: 22 44.0%

  • Total voters
    50
We aren't issued jock straps. There's no need for them. There's no need for additional dietary supplements for male soldiers either.

Between R&D, production, and distribution you might be surprised at how much all of what you have suggested ends up costing in the longrun.

"$10,000 for a hammer, $20,000 for a toilet seat."

I have suggested a single object that can be issued once and used for the entire length of a deployment, no matter how long. It would save the military money over what they're probably doing now. And whatever money is spent on that would easily be saved in reduced calorie needs.

Where are you getting this thing about "all the things I've suggested?" For the most part, I've been saying that women don't actually NEED all of these things that YOU suggested.

If standards remain the same for men and women, the kinds of women you describe are going to be so incredibly rare as to be a virtual non-issue.

Canada has somewhere around 100 female combat soldiers in service, of which they have already managed to get 2 or 3 killed.

I mean... Why? What's the point?

Women are or would be qualified for an increasing number of jobs as combat strategies develop. As several other people who are IN the military have already said, this isn't WWII warfare anymore.

What is the point of male soldiers being killed?
 
How is it "a lot of trouble" to issue a menstrual cup instead of a jock strap?

Well, everyone should have a uniform ruck. It makes finding something in someone else's gear fast and easy. Given, I'm referring to leet infantry. I think women in non-infantry combat arms are not likely to regularly (even in training) encounter such difficult, physically, situations for extended periods (heh) of time.

Here's a good test: Ranger School. If a female can do that with no special gear, she's good ta go. In my jump school (~120?) there were ~10 females and none of them made it through the three weeks. Lots of females get jump wings, but I didn't see any make it. Compared to some of the training I did with my unit, jump school was nothing. Really, after basic and AIT, jump school was vacation. They just couldn't make the Friday runs. Falling back one position in formation, 3 runs total or 1 Friday, 'see ya'.

When a female completes Ranger school with standard gear, then we know a female who can do leet stuff on the rag. Probably, she'd take long-term birth control to avoid complications during the school. But if she could do it with periods, she's definately hardcore.
 
Last edited:
I have suggested a single object that can be issued once and used for the entire length of a deployment, no matter how long. It would save the military money over what they're probably doing now.

You're going to have to provide some evidence that something like this could work over an extended period of time.

I imagine that some non-negligible hygienic issues would come into play if a woman were to try and wear something like that on an extended field op.

And whatever money is spent on that would easily be saved in reduced calorie needs.

Military rations are already "one size fits all." Developing special rations for men and women would simply cost more money.

Where are you getting this thing about "all the things I've suggested?" For the most part, I've been saying that women don't actually NEED all of these things that YOU suggested.

In my experience, the vast majority of women are not so physically robust as you claim to be.

Women are or would be qualified for an increasing number of jobs as combat strategies develop. As several other people who are IN the military have already said, this isn't WWII warfare anymore.

Yes, and these are all non-frontline positions which most women are already eligible for.

The current push is to toss them into combat jobs which are still run more or less exactly how they were during WW2.

What is the point of male soldiers being killed?

It's sometimes necessary. However, men are more readily built for that kind of thing and require far less maintenance.

There's not much point in pushing people who aren't meant for a given job into it if you're just going to wind up having to coddle them the whole time; particularly when there is really no shortage of able bodied people around who are qualified for the same positions.
 
Last edited:
However, neither of those facts really make for a compelling argument for having them go toe-to-toe with men in frontline combat.

We're not talking about "them". We're talking about the less then 1% of women who can pass the standards. If someone can do it, they can do it. But no lowering standards of any sort.
 
You're going to have to provide some evidence that something like could work over an extended period of time.

I imagine that some non-negligible hygienic issues would come into play if a woman were to try and wear something that on an extended field op.

They're made of silicone, which doesn't easily breed bacteria. A simple wash with anything you have on hand once a month will take care of it. These products exist in the market already. They can be used for years.

They're actually more hygienic than tampons. There is no risk of TSS associated with them, like there is with tampons. There's sizing, but this is really just a marketing thing, and unimportant in reality. Vaginas are stretchy. For the purposes of the military, there shouldn't be any problem with just having a single standard issue size.

Menstrual cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would actually cost the military less, reduce hygiene issues, and require less maintenance.

Military rations are already "one size fits all." Making special rations for men and women would simply cost more money.

Where are you getting this thing about "all the things I've suggested?" For the most part, I've been saying that women don't actually NEED all of these things that YOU suggested.

Then don't. What I said is that a healthy woman DOESN'T NEED special rations.

What I said is if you're worried about it, you could do that. But there's no medical reason to be worried about it. A healthy woman doesn't lose much, if any, iron during her period.

Yes, and these are all non-frontline positions which most women are already eligible for.

The current push is to toss them into combat jobs which are still run more or less exactly how they were during WW2.

That isn't really what I'm hearing from people in the military on this thread. However, if that's true, I will defer to those more qualified; allow a given woman into the positions she qualifies for, and don't for the ones she doesn't.

It's sometimes necessary. However, men are more readily built for that kind of thing and require far less maintenance.

There's not much point in pushing people who aren't really meant for a given job into it if you're just going to wind up having to coddle them the whole time; particularly when there is really no shortage of ablebodied people around who are qualified.

Not true. Like I said, men actually require a lot more resources than women do. In long-term cast-away situations, a woman is more likely to survive due to her dramatically lower resource requirements.
 
We're not talking about "them". We're talking about the less then 1% of women who can pass the standards. If someone can do it, they can do it. But no lowering standards of any sort.

I can get behind that to a certain degree. However, I still have to question whether the comparive handful of soldiers we'd get out of it is worth all the grief they'd inevitably cause.

How long before some feminist senator somewhere cries and moans about how the standards "aren't fair" and demands that quotas be put in place?

How do the Israelis and Canadians handle the difference?
 
I can get behind that to a certain degree. However, I still have to question whether the comparive handful of soldiers we'd get out of it is worth all the grief they'd inevitably cause.

It's not about getting soldiers, it's about equal rights. What grief?
 
They're made of silicone, which doesn't easily breed bacteria. A simple wash with anything you have on hand once a month will take care of it. These products exist in the market already. They can be used for years.

They're actually more hygienic than tampons. There is no risk of TSS associated with them, like there is with tampons. There's sizing, but this is really just a marketing thing, and unimportant in reality. Vaginas are stretchy. For the purposes of the military, there shouldn't be any problem with just having a single standard issue size.

Menstrual cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then don't. What I said is that a healthy woman DOESN'T NEED special rations.

What I said is if you're worried about it, you could do that. But there's no medical reason to be worried about it. A healthy woman doesn't lose much, if any, iron during her period.

You might be correct. However, I agree with Ecofarm's stance that rigorous field testing would be necessary to determine whether this can be said to definitively be the case.

Your estimations seem more than a tad overly optimistic. :lol:

I've served with a lot of women in my time. Very few of them seem to be the veritable dynamos you describe them as.

It would actually cost the military less, reduce hygiene issues, and require less maintenance.

No new piece of equipment ever "costs less."

I'm not trying to be a dick about this particular point, but it is a simple reality of how the military functions.

That isn't really what I'm hearing from people in the military on this thread. However, if that's true, I will defer to those more qualified; allow a given woman into the positions she qualifies for, and don't for the ones she doesn't.

The future of armed conflict is almost certainly going to involve a greater emphasis on cyber warfare and robotics, and a reduced emphasis on sustained ground operations.

Women are perfectly qualified for all of these more technical roles. You don't need to toss them in the mud to be shot at just to prove a point.

Not true. Like I said, men actually require a lot more resources than women do. In long-term cast-away situations, a woman is more likely to survive due to her dramatically lower resource requirements.

It's not resources I'm necessarily worried about. It's the amount of "bang" we're getting for our "buck."

As infantry, men simply seem to provide a much better cost to benefit ratio.
 
Last edited:
Same standards and, for infantry, the female must do something to prevent her period. Bleeding costs too many calories when they are few, the mission is long and there's no logistics. We can't carry extra gear (nor adjust uniform packs for such), even one person, and we cannot carry extra calories.

I'm sure that sounds bad, but I've been (airborne) infantry and obviously someone bleeding is a problem. We're hungry, we're tired and we've got 10 klicks tonight - bleeding would make such miserable and maybe impossible unassisted, from the additional exhaustion.


ps. Poll is useless.

That is silly.
 
Racist, sexist fake veterans make me laugh.
 
It's not about getting soldiers, it's about equal rights.

Exactly my point. I don't give a flying **** about "equal rights."

I care about killing the bad guys in the most time and resource efficient manner possible. The military isn't a testing ground for every "social engineering" fad Washington bureaucrats happen to cook up.

What grief?

I've already pointed it out.

How long before some feminist senator somewhere cries and moans about how the standards "aren't fair" and demands that quotas be put in place?

You know it's going to happen sooner or later.

Racist, sexist fake veterans make me laugh.

As I'm sure you'd know from your extensive personal experience. :roll:
 
I can get behind that to a certain degree. However, I still have to question whether the comparive handful of soldiers we'd get out of it is worth all the grief they'd inevitably cause.

How long before some feminist senator somewhere cries and moans about how the standards "aren't fair" and demands that quotas be put in place?

How do the Israelis and Canadians handle the difference?

Israel still has some positions closed to women, but they do a lot of combat stuff.

It seems to be going pretty much without a hitch.

Around The Globe, Women Already Serve In Combat Units : NPR

Female Israeli Soldiers Are Proving Themselves In Combat - Business Insider
 
You might be correct. However, I agree with Ecofarm's stance that rigorous field testing would be necessary to determine whether this can be said to definitively be the case.

Your estimations seem more than a tad overly optimistic. :lol:

I've served with a lot of women in my time. Very few of them seem to be the veritable dynamos you describe them as.

The FDA's approved them, with the standard recommendation all the manufacturers make that they are reusable for years. There are no known health risks associated with them, and they've been around since the 40's.

I am not describing their personalities. I am describing the medical situations of menstruation for a healthy woman; it's just not a big deal.

No new piece of equipment ever "costs less."

I'm not trying to be a dick about this particular point, but it is a simple reality of how the military functions.

It will definitely cost less than what they're doing now, which issuing disposable menstrual products. It would also lessen disposal needs.

The future of armed conflict is almost certainly going to involve a greater emphasis on cyber warfare and robotics, and a reduced emphasis on sustained ground operations.

Women are perfectly qualified for all these more technical roles. You don't need to toss them in the mud to be shot at just to prove a point.

I'm not saying you do. I have said that we should allow women into positions for which they qualify.

It's not resources I'm necessarily worried about. It's the amount of "bang" we're getting for our "buck."

As infantry, men simply seem to provide a much better cost to benefit ratio.

Well, see above.
 
Israel still has some positions closed to women, but they do a lot of combat stuff.

It seems to be going pretty much without a hitch.

Around The Globe, Women Already Serve In Combat Units : NPR

Female Israeli Soldiers Are Proving Themselves In Combat - Business Insider

True. However, keep in mind that they have only been used in a reserve role so far.

Watching a border and shooting at the occassional smuggler is something that women in officially "non-combat" roles in the United States military already do.
 
You know it's going to happen sooner or later.

I see a lot of strange things as inevitable, for examples: a mental evolution of people to sustainable lifestyles, world democracy, global human rights and an end to war in any significant amount. But you know one strange thing that I don't figure will happen? Some female congress member committing political suicide in the name of lowering military standards.
 
I see a lot of strange things as inevitable, for examples: a mental evolution of people to sustainable lifestyles, world democracy, global human rights and an end to war in any significant amount. But you know one strange thing that I don't figure will happen? Some female congress member committing political suicide in the name of lowering military standards.

I'd take that as being rather odd, given the fact that it's already happened.

How do you think we wound up with a mixed-gender military in the first place? They lowered standards so that the women could apply.

The Marines were being forced to lower standards for female recruits as recently as 2012.

Jezebel - Should Female Marines Get a Break?
 
Gat, I'm not clicky on jezebel.com

And it appears those standards are for females. Previously male-only units would maintain male standards even for females.
 
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.

You are just angry because it is acceptable for women to wear fishnet stockings and garter belts, and you have to hide yours.
 

That's standards for females. The premise is that females meet male standards in order to serve in previously male-only units, where such strength and endurance is a job requirement.

Further, it was not about lowering standards but not adding standards to the female physical test. I didn't see anything about lowering female standards.
 
Last edited:
That's standards for females. The premise is that females meet male standards in order to serve in previously male-only units, where such strength and endurance is a job requirement.

Yes, which has been shot down by the "powers that be" in the past because most women couldn't hack it.

Why wouldn't the exact same thing happen here?
 
Luckily a lot of Infantry and other line units carry tampons with them already right? Look, if the Israelis did it then obviously it can be done in one form or another, lets not talk about it as if its impossible to do.

Re: Women serving in combat with the IDF, just typical liberal social engineering propaganda.

>" It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.

“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.

Finally, even Israeli citizens don’t relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don’t want women in combat.

There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.

But to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.”

Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic ears. "<


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more at Debunking the Israeli ‘women in combat’ myth
 
Yes, which has been shot down by the "powers that be" in the past because most women couldn't hack it.

Why wouldn't the exact same thing happen here?

Every idea floated by anyone I've seen has expected male standards for combat arms, where such strength and endurance is a job requirement. You're the only person I've ever seen propose that females serve in combat arms under female standards.
 
Every idea floated by anyone I've seen has expected male standards for combat arms, where such strength and endurance is a job requirement. You're the only person I've ever seen propose that females serve in combat arms under female standards.

We'll see. History would seem to be on my side here, however.

Progressives are also notorious for blatantly lying about the scope of their ambitions and the lengths they will go to achieve their goals in order to get a "foot in the door."
 
Back
Top Bottom